• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Priestly Celibacyand its Pauline Foundation
 Ignace de la Potterie (Biblical scholar)
 For several centuries there has been much debate as to whether the obligation of celibacy for clericsin major orders (or at least that of living in continence for those who are married) is of biblicalorigin or whether it is based merely on ecclesiastical tradition dating back to the fourth century,since from then on, without question, legislation exists on the subject. The first of these two possible answers has recently been presented. once again, this time with an extraordinary wealth of material, by C. Cochini in
Origines apostoliques du célibat sacerdotal.
1
 
Clearly set forth in the title,
the author’s position is apparently that celibacy can be and should be upheld, given that account is
taken (more perhaps than in the past) of the growth of ancient tradition, a point on which A.M.Stickler also insists in his preface,
2
and H. Crouzel in a review.
3
In other words, it could be said thatthe
obligation
of continence (or of celibacy) became canon law only in the fourth century but that, before that, from apostolic times, the ideal of living in continence (or in celibacy) was already heldup to the ministers of the Church, and that this ideal was indeed deeply felt and lived as arequirement by quite a number (Tertullian and Origen, for instance) but was not yet imposed on allclerics in major orders. It was a vital principle, a seed, clearly present from apostolic times butwhich gradually then developed until the ecclesiastical legislation of the fourth century.
4
 The new
Catechism of the Catholic Church
(n.
1579)
seems to take the same line. Out of prudence,however, it omits to mention the canon law on celibacy, which nonetheless forms part of Churchlaw today
(CIC 
277 par. 1), and merely sets out the biblical reasons for celibacy. Yet even here it nolonger refers (as often in the past) to the Old Testament, and only quotes two passages from the New: the one in Matthew 19:22,
about celibacy:
«for the sake of the kingdom of heaven»; and thenthe Pauline text of 1 Corinthians
7:32-35,
where the Apostle speaks of those who are called toconsecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and «his affairs»; and adds by way of conclusion that «embraced with a joyful heart, it (the celibate life) radiantly proclaims the kingdomof God». Here of course one might quote other New Testament passages to which, for instance,Paul VI referred in his encyclical
Sacerdotalis coelibatus
(nn. 17-35), to indicate the reasons for sacred celibacy (its Christological, ecclesiological and eschatological significance). But the problemis that these various texts describe, as a typically Christian ideal, the theological and spiritual valueof celibacy
in genere.
This ideal, however, is equally valid for the religious and for people livingconsecrated lives in the world; they do not show any particular connection with the
ministries
of theChurch.The precise question that arises, therefore, is this: do texts .exist in Holy Writ which point to aspecific connection between celibacy and priesthood? It would seem so. But if this is the case, moreimportance will have to be attached to certain New Testament passages which (oddly) have notreceived much attention in the recent debates. These are the texts in which the Pauline norm (muchcontested, to be sure) of 
‘unius uxoris vir’ 
5
is set out, for analysis of which C. Cochini has also nowadduced new material. Enunciated several times in the Pastoral Letters, this principle is uniquelyimportant in our case for two reasons. The first is, as has been convincingly shown by Stickler 
6
aswell as by Cochini,
7
that the stipulation was one of the main formulae on which the ancient traditionwas based for claiming an actual apostolic origin for the law of 
 priestly celibacy.
This was, of course, an immense paradox: how can one base the
celibacy
of priests on the evidence of textswhich talk about
married 
ministers? Such reasoning can only make sense if there is a middle term
 
 between the two extremes (marriage of ministers and celibacy): it is that of 
continence,
to which, infact,
married 
ministers were bound. It was probably because this mediating value of 
continence
wasoverlooked, that in recent times the formula
unius uxoris vir 
dropped out of discussions on
celibacy.
It is therefore timely today to re-examine carefully the traditional argument.The other reason why these texts are especially important from the strictly biblical point of view liesin the fact that they are the only passages in the New Testament where an identical norm is laiddown for the three groups of 
ordained ministers,
and only for them. For, according to the PastoralLetters, the bishop ought to be
unius uxoris vir 
(1 Tim 3:2), so ought the priest (Tit 1:6) and soought the deacon (I Tim 3:12), whereas that formula (a technical one, it would seem) is never usedfor other Christians. So here we have a special requirement for the exercise of the
ministerial  priesthood 
as such. Further, it should also be observed that the complementary formula
unius viriuxor 
(1 Tim 5:9) is only used of widows at least 60 years old. That is to say, it does not apply to anyChristian woman only but to elderly women who exercise a
ministry
in the community(comparable, one imagines, with that of deaconesses in ancient times). The stereotyped character of this formula in the Pastoral Letters makes one suspect it must have already been rooted in a long biblical tradition.
8
 So what does it mean that the
minister 
of the Church should be «the husband of one wife»? In thefollowing pages we shall first try to show that the formula
unius uxoris vir,
up to the fourth century,was understood, as Stickler so well puts it, «in the sense of a biblical argument in favour of 
celibacy
of 
apostolic
inspiration: for the Pauline norm was interpreted in the sense of a guarantee assuringeffective observance of 
continence
 by
ministers
who were already married before they wereordained.»
9
In the second part, we shall take a step forward: we shall propose a deeper theologicalinterpretation of the Pauline stipulation itself, to show that, already in New Testament times itactually does propose the model for the ministerial priesthood of a marital relationship betweenChrist the bridegroom and the Church his bride, on the basis of the mystical view of marriage whichSt Paul frequently mentions in his letters (cf 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-32).
10
From this, it will becomeabundantly clear that, for married ministers, their ordination implied an invitation to live incontinence thereafter.
The stipulation
unius uxoris vir:
an argument in ancient tradition for the apostolic origin of 
 
celibacy/continence
 a. Ecclesiastical legislation from the fourth century onwards
Scholars generally agree that the obligation of celibacy, or at least of continence, became canonlaw from the fourth century onwards. Here certain incontrovertible texts are quoted repeatedly:three pontifical decretals around AD 385 (Decreta and Cum in unum of Pope Siricius and Dominusinter of Siricius or Damasus) and a canon of the Council of Carthage of AD 390.
11
 However, it is important to observe that the legislators of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed thatthis canonical enactment was based on an apostolic tradition. The Council of Carthage, for instance,said that it was fitting that those who were at the service of the divine sacraments be perfectlycontinent
(continentes esse in omnibus):
«so that what the apostles taught and antiquity itself maintained, we too may observe».
12
The decree on the obligation of 
continence
was then passedunanimously: «It is pleasing to all that bishop, priest and deacon, the guardians of purity, abstainfrom marital relations with their wives
(ab uxori bus se abstineant)
so that the perfect purity may besafeguarded of those who serve the altar.»
 
The Pauline
unius uxoris vir 
is not explicitly quoted here but reference to this stipulation is implicitsince, as in the Pastoral Letters, the bishop, priest and deacon each are mentioned. Besides, 1Timothy 3:2 is quoted explicitly in an earlier text, the decretal
Cum in unum
of Siricius himself,who presented the norms of the Council of Rome of AD 386. Here the Pope first formulated anobjection that the expression
unius uxoris vir 
of 1 Timothy 3:2, some said, specifically guaranteedthe bishop the right
to use
marriage after sacred ordination. Siricius answered by giving the
stipulation’s correct interpretation: «He (Paul) was not speaking of a man who might persist in the
desire to beget children
(non permanentem in desiderio generandi dixit);
he was speaking aboutcontinence which they had to observe in future
(propter continentiam futuram).
»
 
This fundamentaltext was repeated a number of times subsequently.
13
This is Cochini’s comment on it: «Monogamy
(that is to say, the law of 
unius uxoris vir)
is a condition for receiving Order, since faithfulness(observed
up till then)
to one woman is warranty for supposing that the candidate will be capable
(in the future)
of practising the perfect continence to be asked of him after ordination.»
14
And theautho
r goes on: «This exegesis of St Paul’s prescriptions to Timothy and Titus is an essential link 
 by which the bishops of the Synod of Rome (AD 386) and Pope Siricius are cited in continuity withthe apostolic age.»But is this exegesis, for which an apostolic tradition is claimed, properly founded? Not withoutreason, some scholars think it doubtful.
15
For certain questions have to be asked: is it not rather oddto discover in the
 past 
 behaviour of the married minister (that is to say, his faithfulness to onewoman, even in sexual relations) a sufficient guarantee of his
 future
 but
different behaviour 
(that is,continence in conjugal relations with that same woman, his lawful wife)? The legislators saw in the past a guarantee for the future, but at the same time they changed the tune to be played: from the(lawful)
use
of marriage to
renunciation
of it. To justify this twofold transition from past to futureand from sexual relations to conjugal continence, we need an explanatory
tertium quid:
such justification is only possible if an interpretation of this same formula can be found to bring out, perhaps, some hidden and hitherto unnoted aspect. And this is what we shall try to do in the second part.But first let us briefly investigate whether, in the history of exegesis and canonical legislation, theremay not be elements that can lead us to a deeper understanding of the Pauline stipulation. b. Theological reasons for the continence and celibacy of priests
 From the patristic period until today, we find ourselves faced with two different interpretations of the Pauline formula: for some people, the norm unius uxoris vir prohibits serial polygamy; for others, only simultaneous polygamy.
16 
 The first solution is undoubtedly the more traditional: the expression then means that the sacredministers could be married men, but only married once; and if the wife had died, they must not havecontracted a second marriage, nor could they marry again later. Today, too, this interpretation is themore commonly held among Catholic exegetes. According to the other solutions, however,
uniusuxoris vir 
means only being forbidden to live with more than one woman at the same time; it wouldthus simply be a recommendation to observe conjugal morality.But neither of these two solutions is entirely satisfying. To the first, it can be objected: if the unionin which the married minister was hitherto living was virtuous, why should a second marriage not
 be so, after the first wife’s death? It is also the case that the Apostle himself on the
one handrequired the elderly widow who served the community to have been
unius viri uxor 
(1 Tim
5:9),
whereas he advised young widows to get married again (1 Tim 5:14). But the other solution raises problems too: conjugal faithfulness in married life is certainly required of all Christians. Why then
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...